I would like to add something to this discussion between David and Malcolm
andothers about HG I, although I am a little late as I note that both
David and Bill have touched on some of these points.
I agree with parts of both arguments but I think both are missing an
important point. HG I as defined by M170 probably originated in the
Balkans 6 -12K ago in M89 positive folk who were already in Europe for
about 10 K years (this appears to be conceded in various chapters by
Underhill's group on their Stanford website), it then spread north. The
point is that the haplotypes found in the Balkans are quite different from
those found in Scandinavia see paper by Barac et al Eur. J. Hum. Genetics
11, 535 (2003).
The 2.47 + haplotype (the I equivalent of the AMH) appears to have
originated in Scandinavia and it spread out from here in every direction
about 1200 years ago, with the Vikings and others, since then. This
explains the high numbers of this haplotype in Norway and Sweden to this
day. The presence of 2.47+ I think is what FTDNA really mean by
Scandinavian origin. Thus I agree with Malcolm that it is strange that
FTDNA appears to suggest that all HG Is have an origin in Scandinavia. Its
just like R1b not all of them will have Celtic ancestors.
Where your family came from centuries ago obviously has a bearing e.g.
Scandinavia or a place settled by Scandinavians. I believe that in the
near future a combination of SNPstr's will be able to subdivide HG I and
predict with good probability whether ones ancestors are likely to have
come from Scandinavia or not. This may also apply to HG R1a and maybe R1b.
N.P.